On Jul 12, 8:34*am, wrote:
On Jul 11, 9:49*pm, Frank Paynter wrote:









On Jul 11, 7:58*pm, Bart wrote:

On Jul 11, 2:38*pm, wrote:

On July 7, 2011 at Nowy Targ in southern Poland, glider Puchacz
crashed during training flight 2/3 mile from the airport. The
instructor (~64-67) and the student pilot (~18-19) are dead. *It was a
tow rope brake practice flight with down wind turn for down wind
landing from about 130-150 m of altitude (400 feet).
What can we learn from this?

Not much. Rope break at 400 feet should be a non-event. There must be
something about this accident that we do not know yet.

Are these training flights mendatory under FAA rules?
Can pilot request opt-out from "rope brake" during Biennial Flight
Review to avoid getting killed?

FARs do not require rope breaks during a flight review, so it is up to
the instructor you fly with. Personally, if I was an instructor, I
would not sign off anyone who is not comfortable flying a simulated
rope break. Weather permitting, of course.

By the way, what seems to be a typical BFR - three flights, one of
which is a rope break - is actually illegal. Or, to be more precise,
it does NOT met the BFR requirements specified by the FARs: "Glider
pilots may substitute a minimum of three instructional flights in a
glider, each of which includes a flight to TRAFFIC PATTERN ALTITUDE,
in lieu of the 1 hour of flight training required..."

Bart

This discussion reminds me of similar discussions surrounding spin
training in the power world. *So many students and instructors were
killed during spin 'training' that the maneuver was eventually
banished from the required training curriculum. *We in the soaring
community should be taking a very hard look at how many pilots are
injured killed in actual PTT (Premature Termination of Tow) events vs
how many are injured/killed in SRB (Simulated Rope Break) events. *I
would be willing to bet real money that the statistics do not support
the continued use of SRBs in training and/or BFRs. *We don't do base-
to-final turn stall/spin recovery training for obvious reasons (so the
saying goes, "You can only do a base-to-final-turn stall/spin
demonstration ONCE"), and SRBs are just slightly less dangerous.

BTW, at the risk of starting a religious war, rope breaks, spins, and
other dangerous maneuvers can be simulated realistically, at any
altitude and weather configuration in Condor. *If we feel we must
continue to do SRBs as part of a training/review curriculum, they
should ONLY be done in Condor. *The military, GA, and corporate/
airline communities figured this out a long time ago, and now that we
have a realistic soaring simulator, we should be doing it too. *If you
haven't tried this in Condor, you should.

TA- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I completely disagree. Condor can be useful for many things but I do
not see how it will simulate the real world stress
that occurs during an emergency situation.
My experience is that most pilots will make at least one important
mistake during their first PTTT. *Some of these include.
1- Not having a plan in mind that is correct and ready to implement-
the "what would I do?" scenario.
2- Many turn the "wrong " direction- most commonly to the *right
because "that's what we always do".
3- Failure to recognize the situation in the first place- "why are his
wings rocking?"
4- Not establishing the correct attitude to maintain control with
adequate margins. It's not just nose down.
5- Failure to clear for traffic on return.
6- Not establishing proper glide slope back to safe landing point.
7- Huge tunnel vision due to surprise and related stress.
8- Release when tug rudder is wagged to indicate "something is wrong
with your glider".
9- Failure to recognize thr transition point from "I don't have enough
energy margin to return to the field" to "Now I can return".
Take off/ launch accidents are a significant portion of our losses. We
must continue to train and retrain these skills.
UH

Hank,

Well, there is a huge body of evidence from GA, airline, corporate
aviation, and military aviation that indicates that ground-based
simulation is very a very effective training tool for emergency
procedures, and is MUCH safer than airborne training. In a simulator,
bad situations and/or bad decisions by the student can be allowed to
play out to bad endings, something that can't be done safely in flight
and is usually much more effective in getting the point across.

You may make the point that since the student knows he can't die in a
simulator, the real stresses can't be duplicated. However, I would
argue that with airborne training most students think they can't die
because there is an instructor right there to save them, so the same
argument applies.

A student can practice realistic rope breaks in Condor by having an
assistant hit the release unexpectedly, just as in real life. The
student must perform exactly the same functions (lower the nose,
establish a bank in the proper direction, look for an appropriate
landing area, etc) as in real life. I can pretty much guarantee you
that the first few times the student does this, their reaction will be
indistinguishable from their reaction in real life. Moreover, the
situation in Condor can be easily configured so the student has no
hope of returning to the field, and therefore must accomplish a safe
off-airport landing - try that in real life! After 10 or 20 (or 100)
SRBs in Condor, a student will be very well-drilled in rope-break
procedures for a wide variety of situations, much more so than a
corresponding real life only student who typically is exposed to only
a few well-planned and very safe SRBs.

For less than $300 (assuming you already have a decent PC) you can
have a training tool that has been shown over and over again to be
effective in saving lives. Need I say more?

TA